Jesus’ Five Most Unbiblical Teachings

“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that NOTHING that enters a person from the outside can defile them? (Mark 7:18)

This cannot be seen as an outright injunction against the distinctions between clean and unclean, because all throughout Luke-Acts, and the Epistles (all post Jesus Pauline documents,) the prohibitions against consuming blood, against eating meat sacrificed to idols, and things strangled, remain intact.

Also, Paul says the following in 1 Corinthians 8:13 “Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.” Vegetarianism is technically kosher, so I don’t see that even Paul is advocating what Christians read him as saying.

IE if someone needs you to respect certain dietary requirements, (other than the ones already established in the epistles) in order for them to feel”safe” in belief or practice, you should not hinder them by your behavior.

The reason scholars see Jesus as at home in Judaism is because the areas where he is supposed to have violated the Torah were all largely issues still under discussion in his day.

The crippled man accused of carrying his mat on shabbat after his healing by J is a good example. I have a feeling that today, you would treat that case the same as one who uses a wheelchair on shabbat. It would technically be an extension of the crippled man’s private domain.

It doesn’t seem like it would count as something to call J out on as a violation. Also, his alleged violation of ritual hand-washing makes no sense because in his day only the priests observed that custom.

On professor Lawrence Schiffman’s blog he has an interesting article about the absence of the Eruv in the halacha of many second temple groups.

In this instance though Gene several much later PAULINE manuals of discipline and a whole line of reasoning, show this to be a fluke. You are right, I’m not assuming internal consistency, but I find it unlikely that Jesus taught something that not even Paul taught. If Paul is saying “go vegetarian,” and has the rules in Acts as a cornerstone of his basic ethics, that gives me pause.

[] Peter has the correct interpretation. The text in Matthew and Mark refers only to eating food without washing hands according to the tradition. These texts have nothing to do with Leviticus.

[] The Pharisees themselves understood that the words of L-rd Yeshua had nothing to do with Leviticus because they made no reference to it. They were offended because of their false tradition, not because they found Yeshua’s words conflicted with the Torah.

[] And it is strange to focus on the word “nothing” when it does not appear in the Greek text– the actual Greek word is “pan” or, in English, “everything”. And here, in Jewish context amongst a Jewish audience, means “everything lawful.”

[] When properly read In context, an ‘amplified’ reading of Matthew 15:17-19 would be more like: “Eating with unwashed hands does NOT defile you as the tradition would lead you to believe– Don’t you understand that food eaten with unwashed hands simply goes into the mouth, the stomach, then out of the body? Instead, what truly defiles a man are things rooted within the heart and come out of him [evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.]”

Isn’t it bearing ‘false witness’ to compare Leviticus to Matthew when neither the texts nor the Jewish audience made such comparison?

Isn’t it also ‘slanderous’ to denigrate anyone’s character by twisting their words?

“All things are lawful for me”–but not everything is beneficial. “All things are lawful for me”–but I will not be controlled by anything.

For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.

You can argue. But, read in context. ALLLLLLLL things are lawful (even eating Pork). But the church won’t despise you if you don’t eat it. Just don’t judge those who eat pork, for jesus does not care and has received him… Like Jesus said, nothing that goes in the mouth defiles.

Please note, Moshe-Mashiah, the concept brought in the Zohar, does not mean that Moshe Rabenu, Rashbi, the Ari, or R’ Nahman were THE Messiah. Clearly they weren’t. This role, the same as Tzadik HaDor (except sometimes spanning many generations) is something else that relates to THE actual Messiah who has not yet come.

“Also, I don’t think it’s such a great idea for Jews to be leaving our holy Eretz Yisrael…”

Kivrei Tzadikim have the kedusha of the Land of Israel, (Likutei Mohoran II, 109) and the Mishne Berura states they are “admat kodesh”. Like Moshe was buried across from Ba`al Peor, the god of excrement, so is R’ Nahman buried around a more than disgusting place.

There are many involved in the effort of getting his kever relocated to Jerusalem, because he doesn’t belong in Ukraine, as he said “everywhere I go, I go to the Land of Israel”.

The majority of christian believe that the dietary requirement has been dealt with for a reason. Just a question Gene, did you believe in a different interpretation when you still were a messianic? I think a lot of people make excuses for those verses, because the Tanakh said clearly that the law is for ever. Now that you don’t believe in the NT, it’s just a plain contradiction.

As for me, it helped me to throw christianity in the trash. Seriously, it’s clear enough from those passages that the law was dealt with, but people find excuses to say that it’s not the case. Jesus would never say you can eat pork!

Let us celebrate passover with a nice ham between the egg and the bitter herb, and let’s call it kosher :) yummi!

I totally disagree that the Zohar, Kitvei Ari, sifrei Breslev, etc, have ANY foreign influence whatsoever. Instead, much of oriental mysticism derived from ours (remember Sefer Yetzira was written by Avraham avinu who sent “gifts” to his sons who went to the east, you probably know this, I think from Rashi’s commentary on the pasuk), only they use the names of tum’a and they also have bastardized and even watered down the concepts that they derived from us. The same is true of Islam and Christianity. “Sufi” means “tzofi” (tzadi is really a kind of s sound, like in Arabic, Aramaic and in Yemenite Hebrew), a term synonymous with navi. They got it all from us.

It’s better to not be concerned with seeming similarities because once you’re free of any of their lies and you have a foundation in halakha, it is very easy to separate and discern the difference between them.

The concept of the Tzadik Amiti and believing in the Tzadik who is in the aspect of Moshe Rabenu is found in the written Torah as I explained above, and just because Christianity ripped it off and made it into straight up paganism doesn’t mean we should reject the original concept – because that would mean we’re being influenced by Christianity and losing out on the truth of our own faith.

In fact, R’ Nahman teaches that even if you’re working and among goyim, you can find HaShem within that whole experience somewhere, albeit highly hidden. Because if there weren’t any holiness of HaShem in any given place, it wouldn’t exist. The same is true of the nations’ religions and their languages, which all have elements of kedusha that have been engulfed in the extras/shells/klipot. If you find them and raise them out, it’s a big deal.

There is a whole amazing Torah in Likutei Moharan about discrepancies within the texts of foreign religions which cause some of the adherents to come to Judaism when they see the contradictions and when they realize the bits of kedusha within those texts conflict with all the dross and ‘shells’. The reason any kedusha gets there in the first place is also mentioned in the Torah, but I’ve already written a megilla and if anyone’s interested in finding out more, I could find which Torah in L”M it is exactly.

Concerned Reader, I think since the Roman empire always universalized all religions of the peoples subject to them, incorporating them and their worship into the melting pot religion, and since they couldn’t grasp that Judaism was monotheistic and wouldn’t change, they forced a change.

It is no wonder, then, that this became the official religion of the Roman empire. It was the same old mixed paganism Rome had held by, only now with different names. The pantheon of gods was replaced by the saints.

I don’t believe Yeshu existed as portrayed in the NT, at all. I think he may have been based on 1-3 actual people who existed.

“I definitely believe Jesus existed, because there is no historical reason to believe he didn’t exist. ”

I tend to agree with you. Jesus was a “rabbi”, and his disciples wrote his story. I don’t believe everything in the New testament, but I think he might have been a preacher. He might have done some “miracles”, but at the end, was killed disappointing all his disciples and the hope of the messianic era. His disciples arrived with an explanation and romanced everything (especially the ending). “John”, nevertheless invented his whole book, I don’t think he knew Jesus at all.

The problem with the new testament is, “who is Jesus if G-d is one”. That’s why they arrived with their polytheist interpretations. We are not supposed to worship anything else than G-d, but Jesus is there, Darn! Some wanted to get rid of the “old” testament, and some had other idea. Rome wanted unity, and decided to go with one of them, the trinity. Yes, they did not bother too much, as long as the “echad” was explained in a way or another, it was fine.

I also think that Rome tolerated Judaism, but that was until Christianity was declared the state religion. Then things went the other war round and Jews were declared the enemy of the cross. But of course, “real” christian would say the they were not follower of Jesus.

CR, sins are pertinent to Judaism, not paganism, like you said, and that is exactly my point. What better way to get the ine religion that doesn’t fit to accept nkrmative paganism by making your sins automatically atoned for by a man god who offered himself up as a human sacrifice?

When I say “pagans don’t care about sins” I don’t think you get it. I mean, the central tenant of the Christian story is meaningless to polytheists. Also, Christianity taught reward and punishment (despite J’s death) up until the reformation. Pagans thought the idea of a man dying for something they didn’t care about was meaningless, that was my point. How can someone (you or someone else) die for “sins” when your culture doesn’t believe in mitzvot, a moral arbiter who gives mitzvot, or a concept of sin? See what I’m trying to say? Normative paganism has no notion of “sins” to be atoned for, so the Christian myth is not a product of polytheists.

And what I said doesn’t conflict with what you wrote, because Christianity cintains paganism mixed with Jewish values and although someone dying for their sins may not have been meanjngful to pagans, it was a bastardization of a Jewish concept, therefore attempting to appeal to Jews and incorporate Judaism into normative paganism, as if it were possible. Christianity was an attempt to appeal to Jews and incorporate some Jewish concepts into the universalist Roman religion. Then it becomes no wonder it became known as Catholicism, meaning Universalism.

Yeshu is the “Rav”, the archangel, of Esau (Likutei Moharan 8), he is all din/gevura. Also, Esau spurned the birthright which is wisdom, yud, the sun, etc (Likutei Moharan 1). Yeshua is the name Esau plus a yud, that is the klipa of Esau tried to regain the yud, wisdom, birthright, that he oreviously spurned. He tried to do this to appear wise an peaceful, and leach off of Torah, which is the inheritance of the birthright that he spurned and that Ya`akov rigtfully took, as he was fitting. Ya`akov was a man of Torah and a warrior in the right way, as he possessed mishpat, which is the Middle Pillar. He didn’t use his physical prowess to destroy anyone, not even Lavan the idolater, when he easily could have. Esau, on the other hand, used his physical prowess for pure evil. His “Rav”, who is the Samekh-Mem himself, personified himself as Yeshu to try to gain the yud that he spurned before.

What happened is, we accurately identified him for what he is and called him Yeshu, taking away the `ayin, which symbolizes sight/wisdom, the very thing he tried to gain, and also rendering his name the intitials of “yimah shemo wa-zikhro” (“may He blott out his name and memory”).

If the correlations between wisdom, yud, birthright, and the rest are unclear, they’re proven in Likutei Moharan as cited. I’m merely connecting the dots from multiple teachings there and drawing my own hidush about Yeshu from them.

You seem interested in “original Jewish followers” of Yeshu, and I think any of them were simply heretics, otherwise the Sages wouldn’t have added the curse of the minim to the tefilla. In the nusah tefilla of the Land of Israel from the Talmud Yerushalmi, the text mentions the נצרים specifically. In the versions derived from the Bavli, the text is מסרים/מודסרים, meaning informants to the gentiles, but hinting at the נצרים/נוצרים, since mem and nun are interchangeable and sadi and samekh are also, and in fact sound almost identically the same when pronounced correctly (sadi is a kind of s sound, not a tz sound as it has become kniwn as today). There is a halakha that if the leader of the tefilla messes up or delays during the audible recitation of the tefilla at the curse of the minim, he should be replaced immediately because it makes him a suspect for being a heretic.

All the Sages of the Gemara could perform miracles, including raising the dead, and their decisions and statements are deeper than what they usually appear to be on the surface. They were above and beyond the spiritual level and understanding of anyone alive today.

This whole argument is pointless in the end, because it’s focusing on the details of paganism, philosophy, and heresy. When it comes down to it, there is no purpose on this earth besides believing in HaShem, His tzadikim and hakhamim, and learning and doing the Torah and praying Him sincerely in order to draw closer to Him (see end of Ecclesiastes). Everything else is a distraction.

That being said, it is necessary to look at the wisdom behind all things in creation, and to realize that nothing is by chance, and to therefore delve into the wisdom behind what takes place on any level (Likutei Moharan 1), but these things are reserved fornthose who have no doubts about HaShem’s oneness and no confusions about how to serve Him.

I guess I have the same problems with all of the major monotheistic religions then. The same problem exists within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The problem is that each group judges others through their own interpretive lenses, and not through real interaction with or real knowledge of real living people and their worldviews. If there is a real interaction of people, it is usually an interaction with only one group within the larger entity, confined at one point in time, and that experience then gets applied to all others.

Allow me to explain. When a Christian reads his New Testament, he is reading a book (probably written by some Jews in the second temple period,) that takes what happened in that one generation, and then creates a caricature of all Jews past and present. One small group of Jews becomes a typecast for an entire people, a whole nation. The Christians therefore believe, “I’ve read what the NT says about Jews, therefore I know all I need to know.” Its outrageous, its inaccurate, its wrong.

Islam, (rather than talking to real Jews and Real Christians) has a description of some Jews and some Christians in their Qur’an, but then applies that one experience and description to both groups indiscriminately and unilaterally across all time. Likewise, outrageous, inaccurate, and wrong.

Judaism has a halachic framework that gives a set of behaviors that are considered to constitute Avodah Zarah.

Muslims (who only pray to one being) are called monotheists by the Rambam in every sense, while Christians are called idol worshipers.

It doesn’t even matter to anyone, or raise any questions for people that the Christians believe in the Torah as we posses it now, or that their religion historically actually emerged from inside of Judaism, though bastardized or extreme in certain ideas it was.

The question likewise isn’t examined of how other movements since Christianity have likewise arisen in Judaism, with enough similarities to the Christians so as to cause problems. Avodah zerah is thus defined mostly by meeting a criterion of actions listed in a book, and not much else.

Polytheism as defined by the Torah is a set of behaviors, it does not go beyond that in judgement. It says “if a person worships the sun, moon, stars, or the whole host of heaven.” he/she is an idolater. This is likewise a typecast of others as in the other two religions, because it requires no direct interaction, and no direct knowledge of real people or worldviews.

The Torah says if you “worship,” thereby applying its own definitions and concept to the term worship. The fact that other cultures may have completely different notions of the word worship, of the divine, or may not in fact be worshiping anything at all, etc. gets glossed over in favor of a construct constructed by a list of forbidden behaviors. Its just like the Christian caricature of Jews in a way, just in a different context.

These forbidden behaviors aren’t even universally forbidden under all circumstances in the Torah itself. As Aaron has already noted, its completely consistent with Torah to cleave to a human being to enhance emunah, especially if he is the Tzadik hador. One may even visit the graves in a given context for introspection, without strictly violating the laws of worship. (let’s forget for a moment that the oldest polytheism around involves standing by graves and being introspective.)

Hashem himself even commanded once that an image be made and stared at, (the serpent of brass,) that had to be destroyed, and people were confused when Israel started to eventually worship it?

G-d says “you saw no form” but he always brings Shaliachs, Moshiachs, and angels that bear G-d’s name and authority, etc. One angel even says the words “I am the G-d of bethel,” in first person, and people are somehow surprised there was a Jesus of Nazareth? really?